Today Woodward presented the latest results of the Mach Effect Research.Stephanie Thomas presented more work PSS and PPPL did on the FRC based Direct Fusion Drive.Ryan Weed of Positron Dynamics presented some information on their Positron catalyzed fusion propulsion system. Robert Adams showed more results of the Pulsed Fission Fusion propulsion concept.I am also looking forward to John Slough's (of Helion and MSNW) presentation on Thursday.And there are tons more interesting things today and in the days to come.

I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.

Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?

Then the approx. 500 sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.

Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmat unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that.

Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?

Then the approx. 500 fold sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.

Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmar unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that. The contrary result would also remove uncertainty...if Woodward and Fearn agree the correct protocols were followed.

If the validity of the concept is confirmed, then a period of intense materials science R&D needs to happen to produce better materials for it.

Of course, it should not be named dilithium. The temptation must be resisted.

Last edited by TDPerk on Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.